I'm neither. I'm just being realistic. The design department doesn't matter, because we're talking about a guy running the company, i.e. a Steve Jobs replacement, not about some minion working below Jonny Ives.

Second, even Jonny Ives has a proper college degree (i.e. not a drop out like Steve), and certainly isn't vocal about his drug experiences as Jobs was.

Realistic in that you don't work at Apple HQ and have no idea what's happening there. Cook doesn't micro-manage. He trusts his team to work out the details. I bet you Jony does all the hiring for his team.

Big fan of Apple for many years and will always admire and respect Mr. Jobs, but all you Apple sycophants are interesting. How dare anyone say anything against the vaunted Apple... burn em at the stake. I just saw the interview on CBS and I liked Ellison, you could see his love and admiration for Mr. Jobs. And he's right... with Jobs - Apple goes up, without Jobs - Apple went down, Jobs returned and Apple rises again. Now that he's deceased, Apple is again going down just a bit, not struggling and still making a ton, but not what they were with Jobs. Since he's passed away, what new product has Apple released? That would be zero!!! iPad Mini doesn't count, shrinking Jobs' iPad which is said he agreed to before dying is not a new product. Just a lot of updates & upgrades and mini-redesigns, but nothing new. Cook keeps saying how they're working on things, but to date - today - nothing. What... a watch...woop-dee-doo, a smart watch, stop the presses, when there are already smart watches out there and everyone else is working on one also, so even that wouldn't be new. A new product (to me) is Cook stepping out on that stage and revealing something completely new that no one is expecting or at least has out yet and other companies race to copy.

Define "invent." Jobs most certainly was the driving force, the spiritual leader, the idea guy behind the Mac, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad. None of these products would have existed without Jobs. In fact none of these devices would even exist today anywhere without Jobs. Do you really think Samsung, Ballmer, HP, Michael Dell, or any of them could have come up with these devices on their own? Nope, we would still have Samsung phones that look like the ones they made befroe the iPhone came out.

You could argue the same thing about Edison or Ford. Technically they invented nothing, they were the same guiding force pushing their teams. They were the visionaries. So yes, in my opinion, Steve Jobs invented a lot.

And if one truly believes history repeats itself then Ellison is correct. Apple fell flat on its face without Jobs the first time around. It remains to be seen if Jobs did in fact inject his DNA into Apple the second time around. This Fall will settle that question. And Apple does not need to actually fail financially for Ellison's prediction to come true. All Apple has to do is become a "normal" company without new ideas, clinging to what worked in the past. That will make Ellison's prediction valid.

He used the word invent, not innovate. That's why I asked what Steve invented.

And if one truly believes history repeats itself then Ellison is correct. Apple fell flat on its face without Jobs the first time around.

Apple didn't fall flat because of the ABSENCE of Jobs, Apple fell flat because of the PRESENCE of the Pepsi guy. And mind you, it was Jobs who brought that guy on board. So you might as well say, Apple's almost bankruptcy is actually Jobs' own doing.

It wasn't the absence of Jobs that was the problem, it was the bad leadership that was present that drove Apple to the brink.

Any other way of seeing it, is cultish.

Any decent leader and a bunch of good engineers and designers can make Apple successful, just as Chanel is still a leading fashion house, even with Coco long dead.

I'm neither. I'm just being realistic. The design department doesn't matter, because we're talking about a guy running the company, i.e. a Steve Jobs replacement, not about some minion working below Jonny Ives.

Second, even Jonny Ives has a proper college degree (i.e. not a drop out like Steve), and certainly isn't vocal about his drug experiences as Jobs was.

Realistic in that you don't work at Apple HQ and have no idea what's happening there. Cook doesn't micro-manage. He trusts his team to work out the details. I bet you Jony does all the hiring for his team.

For one, I know plenty of people who work at Apple, and I'm not talking as retail drones in the shopping malls, but in product development, and for two, no matter who does the interviewing, HR has to approve the hiring, and for three, again for the second time, we're not talking about hiring design underlings for Ive, but hiring a CEO who'd take Jobs' place

It doesn't matter how many LSD dropping college drop-outs are working in some capacity at Apple, if the corporate management decides they are going with plastic screens instead of gorilla glass, because it saves $.50/phone, meaning an extra $30m in profit etc.

The question is, who calls the shots, and how does that person think, and what's that person's design sensibility.

If Cook thought iOS7 is a crock of shit, no matter what Ive's design credentials are and regardless if Cook is micromanaging or not, the product wouldn't see the light of day looking like it does, because the buck stops at the CEO, he's ultimately responsible for what the company makes, ships and sells.

So when the discussion is about why no company would hire a guy like Jobs to run the company, then stop deflecting to whether or not maybe somewhere at some level a guy like Jobs might end up getting hired into some subordinate role that has insignificant bearing on the future of the company, and certainly no bearing on the topic of discussion.

What... a watch...woop-dee-doo, a smart watch, stop the presses, when there are already smart watches out there and everyone else is working on one also, so even that wouldn't be new.

it's worth pointing out that there were portable MP3 players before the iPod, there were smartphones before the iPhone, there was OOP/OOL before NeXT, there were GUIs before the Mac, and there were personal computers before the Apple ][.

Neither Jobs nor Apple are known for firsts, they are known for waiting until they know how to do things right and good enough that it's more than just a toy.

So what do I care how many useless smart watches other companies make, none of which have truly a compelling reason for me to buy one, other than being a tech geek toy, a trinket, waste of money for no real utility? The question is, if/when Apple introduces a smart watch, will it actually be useful, or be in the same category of "gadget of the month"? If/when they release a smart watch, will it actually have a usable battery life unlike the other devices? Will it do something I don't want to be ever without again?

I can't say I'm in complete disagreement with Ellison. What has Apple really done in the time between the release of the iPhone 4S and now? Not much...

We now have the iPhone 5, the iPad mini a couple of horrid looking ipods (except for the touch) and the Retina MacBooks. None of these releases have had the impact of the original products though...

People often look at what Apple is doing now that Steve's gone and criticize but what would be different if Steve was still there? Any kind of stories can be invented about what Apple could be doing differently if Steve was still around e.g Steve would have designed iOS differently, he would have made a bigger phone, he would have made a Mac Pro like the old one and kept the 17" MBP because he understood people's needs, he would have destroyed Android by now, he'd have made a TV etc. There's no evidence for any of this, people just project their own preferences into the unknown and it's distasteful when you think about it from the point of view of Steve's closest colleagues. The constant suggestions that they are somehow betraying his legacy when they know better than anyone what that was.

There's no question that Apple would be a stronger company if he was still there but they are still a strong company without him because he didn't do everything by himself. Some people are worried about the long-term for Apple but that would have been the case no matter the circumstances. People don't live forever; would Steve have still been running the company at 70, 80 years old? What other technology advancements needed to be made? Computers have gone from mainframes to pockets in Steve's lifetime. Apple's focus is computers so all they would have done is put another computer somewhere else but there aren't really many places left to put one that would make a big impact.

Looking ahead 20-30 years, even the familiar faces we see now will likely be all gone. My biggest concern for the long-term future of Apple isn't Steve but Tim, Jony, Phil, Bob, Craig and others. Who follows after them and what kind of mess are they going to make of the company? It's quite clear to me that the current team is strong enough to keep the company running steadily for the next decade but their management style and drive will eventually be diluted through another generation.

One thing is for sure though, we will always need computers just like we need home appliances. Even if Apple changes next to nothing in their Mac line from this point on, I'll still take it over Windows and Linux. In mobile, I just can't see Apple ever reaching a losing position, which would be a position where they have to stop making mobile devices. As for major innovation, this only matters if a competitor has a chance of doing it first. When has Samsung, Google, Microsoft, RIM etc done anything innovative enough that they now drive the technology sector? All they've ever done is make "me too" products on the back of Apple.

Larry is out to lunch
Comparing apple at pre scully times and the chaos when scully came on board..To what apple evolved to after steves return and the team that is in charge now ..... . Is as ignorant a view as it can get.
Steve and apple were immature in the 90s .. Scully was a sugar water sales person. The whole company was divided and in chaos.
Apple now is fully mature with solid direction and solid team put together by Steve. Run by one of the most brilliant individuals in tec industry.
P.s. Steve was not the sole innovator in apple. He was a visionary and a great leader and marketer... But most of the innovation at apple came from other people in the team.. As it does today !

Now that everyone here has dismissed anything Larry had to say, I'll mention that he also said that what Larry Page (specifically) did with using Oracle's Java code was evil. Not that Page was evil or Google was evil but that this one time Page was acting evil in using any java code. Does that make Ellison OK now?

EDIT: Strange day. I'm in with two story mentions so far today that AI puts up it's own article on a few minutes later. (Yeah I know it's not because I mentioned 'em)Edited by Gatorguy - 8/13/13 at 9:53am

So when the discussion is about why no company would hire a guy like Jobs to run the company, then stop deflecting to whether or not maybe somewhere at some level a guy like Jobs might end up getting hired into some subordinate role that has insignificant bearing on the future of the company, and certainly no bearing on the topic of discussion.

Oh, I think I misread it. In any case just because most companies won't hire a creative guy as CEO, the CEO doesn't drive/decide every detail. If a creative really wants something, he/she should be able to explain why. I don not know of any mid size to large companies that only rely on the CEO for everything. That is why there are mgmt teams.

Good thing we have a CEO of one successful company telling us how each and every company is gonna do or we might not be able to predict the future like this. Anyone else think Larry Ellison looks like Mickey Rourke lately?

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison opinion is simply base on opinion that is spinning in the past. He is the one who doesn't have any vision to speak on the basic of what is taking place in technology. He is blind in front of iOS 7; re engineering of iMac series and many more. Today he has teamed up with underdog Microsoft and trying to create false illusions among public in an effort to populate the world with third rated products according to the whom and fancy of Bill Gates. It is not going to work as Steve Jobs has already laid a strong foundation for Apple even without his presence but his vision do exist in each one working with Apple and those who uses their product do remain so loyal. This will not sink with LE as his world just revolves with R D B M S and nothing else

He was focused and wasn't a tech geek wanting to make stuff for fellow tech geeks. When it wasn't an improvement for the average person, he didn't glorify it as an improvement. He didn't let cheapness or tech geekery rule him or his company. He resisted such modes of thinking. At the same time, he was domineering and obsessively controlling, while having a silver tongue and charisma to ensure that any disagreement with him had to go a long way to change what his preference was. He was a mix of good vision and harsh control. I wouldn't have ever wanted to work in his company, but I think his effects on the computer industry have been mostly the right ones needed to push the industry to overcome stagnation in its childhood (which it's still in).

That's what I observe as what Steve Jobs did at Apple. Will Apple show it has learned that lesson of focus and forward motion or will it succumb to leadership by committee of people who have conflicting visions (or no vision at all)? An organism like a society or corporation doesn't have long term memory because its constituent parts are constantly changing. The chances are that the default group think and mess of conflicting opinions will take hold again. I hope I'm wrong. The industry isn't near done maturing.

When Steve died Apple lost their best salesman. No one else comes close. Tim and Phil are OK on stage but not great. Jony is great in the videos but he won't go on stage. Steve could make you want anything. That's not the case with Tim. He's getting better but he's still not great.

If he was such as good friend of Mr Jobs - wouldn't it be a better testament to that friendship to say something along the lines of he has high hopes for the company that he friend left behind well before anyone could have predicted and maybe even that he would want to maintain a good working relationship with Apple to provide software that will continue to make Apple products compelling and the company successful so that Steve's legacy could live on.

Big fan of Apple for many years and will always admire and respect Mr. Jobs, but all you Apple sycophants are interesting. How dare anyone say anything against the vaunted Apple... burn em at the stake. I just saw the interview on CBS and I liked Ellison, you could see his love and admiration for Mr. Jobs. And he's right... with Jobs - Apple goes up, without Jobs - Apple went down, Jobs returned and Apple rises again. Now that he's deceased, Apple is again going down just a bit, not struggling and still making a ton, but not what they were with Jobs. Since he's passed away, what new product has Apple released? That would be zero!!! iPad Mini doesn't count, shrinking Jobs' iPad which is said he agreed to before dying is not a new product. Just a lot of updates & upgrades and mini-redesigns, but nothing new. Cook keeps saying how they're working on things, but to date - today - nothing. What... a watch...woop-dee-doo, a smart watch, stop the presses, when there are already smart watches out there and everyone else is working on one also, so even that wouldn't be new. A new product (to me) is Cook stepping out on that stage and revealing something completely new that no one is expecting or at least has out yet and other companies race to copy.

I miss you Steve Jobs, rest peacefully.

When Jobs rejoined Apple, while he immediately took actions like simplifying the product line and eventually coming out with the iMac, it took years for the finances and stock price of the company to recover.

Coincident with Jobs' leaving Apple shortly before he died, Apple was coming off a strong product development cycle with the iPhone and the iPad. Had there been other products in the works back then, we'd be seeing them now. So I think even if Jobs was still with Apple today, the product release schedule wouldn't look all that different.

While Jobs may be the best CEO of any American company ever and he was a true visionary, there are thousands of people at Apple who actually developed these products, including many of the original concepts. To say that Apple can't survive without Jobs is to ignore the contributions of all these other people. While Jobs cannot be replaced and Cook will never be the visionary that Jobs was, that doesn't mean that Apple has a dismal future. It only means that Apple doesn't have quite the same future as it would have had with Jobs. In some respects, Apple could have a better future. While Jobs was a genius, he was also arrogant and tended to ignore consumers.

No company has ever released a totally new product category every year. It's absurd to expect Apple to do that with or without Jobs. I still predict that 20 years from now, Apple is going to be a robotics company.

When Jobs rejoined Apple, while he immediately took actions like simplifying the product line and eventually coming out with the iMac, it took years for the finances and stock price of the company to recover.

Coincident with Jobs' leaving Apple shortly before he died, Apple was coming off a strong product development cycle with the iPhone and the iPad. Had there been other products in the works back then, we'd be seeing them now. So I think even if Jobs was still with Apple today, the product release schedule wouldn't look all that different.

While Jobs may be the best CEO of any American company ever and he was a true visionary, there are thousands of people at Apple who actually developed these products, including many of the original concepts. To say that Apple can't survive without Jobs is to ignore the contributions of all these other people. While Jobs cannot be replaced and Cook will never be the visionary that Jobs was, that doesn't mean that Apple has a dismal future. It only means that Apple doesn't have quite the same future as it would have had with Jobs. In some respects, Apple could have a better future. While Jobs was a genius, he was also arrogant and tended to ignore consumers.

No company has ever released a totally new product category every year. It's absurd to expect Apple to do that with or without Jobs. I still predict that 20 years from now, Apple is going to be a robotics company.

Apple a robotics company 20 years down the road? Up until that point I thought you had a lot of good sense, but with that last statement? I think the drugs might have kicked in. Robotics for whom? With all of the money invested in robotics over the years, what products are there for the home that people NEED? There is only ONE single product I can think of and it's not that great of a product. It's those cheap iRobot vacuum cleaners. That's the only robotics that has emerged from the ENTIRE robotics industry for the home. I think we'll see 3D printers in the home so we can basically make a lot of products that we might normally go to the store and buy, but robotics? Nope, sorry, I don't see that.

I see them integrating more in the car way before that. I think that's a long term strategy that might do well in.

Otherwise it's a smart TV for the future once they figure out a few things to make them indispensable.

My thoughts exactly. The Americas Cup Race is about to become the Embarrassment Cup Race. Larry, stick to your sailboat racing since you obviously know so much more about it (maybe he really wanted submarine races but this is the best they could compromise on). LMAO!

Before you go off the deep end, please understand that according to the Patent Act, you cannot simply add your name to the List of Inventors. You have to be actively and significantly involved in the designing/creative process. Otherwise the patent application can be rejected.

Maybe you can't stand Ellison. But then you weren't one of Steve's best friend and confidant. I wonder how many people would have loved to have a smidgeon of the time that Ellison spent with Steve.

My thoughts exactly. The Americas Cup Race is about to become the Embarrassment Cup Race. Larry, stick to your sailboat racing since you obviously know so much more about it (maybe he really wanted submarine races but this is the best they could compromise on). LMAO!

I don't know Larry well enough to know if he normally talks the way he does, but I noticed he has a nervousness about his speech. he seemed to be stuttering quite a bit for someone of that stature, seasoning, etc. I think he wasn't thinking too clearly and was obviously sticking up for his friend, which is admirable, but I think if Apple management can not screw up so much and come out with the proper products and continually improve everything they do, then they'll do fine. I just think they need to get Jony to be more involved with speaking to the media and being part of the Keynotes and product announcements. He's intense but charismatic. he's not Jobs, but he doesn't need to be Jobs.

Apple a robotics company 20 years down the road? Up until that point I thought you had a lot of good sense, but with that last statement? I think the drugs might have kicked in. Robotics for whom? With all of the money invested in robotics over the years, what products are there for the home that people NEED? There is only ONE single product I can think of and it's not that great of a product. It's those cheap iRobot vacuum cleaners. That's the only robotics that has emerged from the ENTIRE robotics industry for the home. I think we'll see 3D printers in the home so we can basically make a lot of products that we might normally go to the store and buy, but robotics? Nope, sorry, I don't see that.

I see them integrating more in the car way before that. I think that's a long term strategy that might do well in.

Otherwise it's a smart TV for the future once they figure out a few things to make them indispensable.

Robots will definitely become a more mainstream "appliance"....probably not 20 years. More likely 30-40 years.

And if you think that that's possible, then why wouldn't Apple be significantly involved?

Robots will definitely become a more mainstream "appliance"....probably not 20 years. More likely 30-40 years.

And if you think that that's possible, then why wouldn't Apple be significantly involved?

I think they will be in the Robot industry. Just a matter of when.

Robotics in the home? I don't see it.

Why wouldn't Apple be involved? Because they aren't a Robotics company. Let's say for grins there was a robot, it might interface with an Apple computing device like any peripheral, but the actual robot wouldn't be designed and built by Apple. Apple doesn't really do peripherals. If you look at home automation, they will use iPads, iPhones, and computers, but the rest of the home automation system is done by various companies that specialize in certain aspects of the home or business. But Apple products would be something that the user interacts with or an Apple computer might be the base of the system. But I honestly don't know what robotics products the average Joe will be able to afford. So far, it's the iRobot products and I don't see lots of them and I don't know how well or badly they actually work. But they are fairly expensive. I've never seen one in someone's home, yet. They might interface with an Apple tablet, phone, etc., but Apple's not a robotics company...

Now that everyone here has dismissed anything Larry had to say, I'll mention that he also said that what Larry Page (specifically) did with using Oracle's Java code was evil. Not that Page was evil or Google was evil but that this one time Page was acting evil in using any java code. Does that make Ellison OK now?

EDIT: Strange day. I'm in with two story mentions so far today that AI puts up it's own article on a few minutes later. (Yeah I know it's not because I mentioned 'em)

It would make him sort of OK if he also mentioned that Java ripping off NeXTSTEP and SUN breaking the OpenStep allegiance with NeXT in favor of its own OOP/OOL NeXTSTEP rip-off aka Java was evil, too. Not like he had anything to do with it then, but he happily continued the issue and grabbed SUN and its Java strategy for Oracle. To his defense, under Oracle, Java was more moved towards a backend/enterprise tool, and moved away from the desktop anti-Windows/anti-Mac positioning (which would have been OK had it been cooked up independently without the "inspiration" called NeXTSTEP).

The most negative fall-out of the entire Java hoopla was that NeXT/Apple's WO/EOF was transitioned to Java and in the process lost about 95% of the appeal it had. Still hoping Apple will eventually come out with a native WO/EOF replacement, which again allows Cocoa apps and web apps to share the same back-end object code and data infrastructure.

It would make him sort of OK if he also mentioned that Java ripping off NeXTSTEP and SUN breaking the OpenStep allegiance with NeXT in favor of its own OOP/OOL NeXTSTEP rip-off aka Java was evil, too. Not like he had anything to do with it then, but he happily continued the issue and grabbed SUN and its Java strategy for Oracle. To his defense, under Oracle, Java was more moved towards a backend/enterprise tool, and moved away from the desktop anti-Windows/anti-Mac positioning (which would have been OK had it been cooked up independently without the "inspiration" called NeXTSTEP).

The most negative fall-out of the entire Java hoopla was that NeXT/Apple's WO/EOF was transitioned to Java and in the process lost about 95% of the appeal it had. Still hoping Apple will eventually come out with a native WO/EOF replacement, which again allows Cocoa apps and web apps to share the same back-end object code and data infrastructure.

Well stated and you're not alone on wishing WOF/EOF/ObjC would be restored.

So when the discussion is about why no company would hire a guy like Jobs to run the company, then stop deflecting to whether or not maybe somewhere at some level a guy like Jobs might end up getting hired into some subordinate role that has insignificant bearing on the future of the company, and certainly no bearing on the topic of discussion.

Oh, I think I misread it. In any case just because most companies won't hire a creative guy as CEO, the CEO doesn't drive/decide every detail. If a creative really wants something, he/she should be able to explain why. I don not know of any mid size to large companies that only rely on the CEO for everything. That is why there are mgmt teams.

Agreed in principle. In practice, business school types only know Excel and numbers, not product experience, design, aesthetics, etc.

The result is, as you see in all of Apple's competition: e.g. plastic cases instead of recyclable and durable aluminum: because it saves some money

The issue is, designers/creative guys can well explain why aluminum is better, but the suits will laugh them out of the room (or fire them), because they quickly run the numbers in their head, and realize how much money they can save going with the cheap plastic alternative.

The feedback loop, the leap of faith, to do what's good, durable, etc. i.e. the "build it and they will come" approach is something 99% of business people just don't get. Apple just would never have had the products it has, if they had conventional CEOs; not because no engineer would love to build (to stick with the example) machined aluminum laptop cases, but because no suit with an MBA would ever OK such a "needlessly expensive product".

One of the best passages in the Jobs biography is where it says (something like): "Jobs never worried about money, first because he didn't have any, then because he had more than enough." Very few people are in that position, and very few companies are run by people like that. And that, more than talent or anything else, sums up the difference between Jobs and most other people running companies.

If you want to know where Apple is losing its own identity, it's not whether or not there's enough innovation, but if you see strategies like planned obsolesence creep into the business model (e.g. AppStore not allowing the last supported version of an app of a legacy device). These are counter to what Jobs did when he was at his best: back then, he did what was right, and he figured, eventually that would translate into customer loyalty and future sales; just like he didn't worry about one product cannibalizing sales of another product. The latter is (mostly) still the case with Apple, but the planned obsolesence is unfortunately becoming a reality with Apple, and quite in contrast to why I initially switched to the iPhone from a Palm device; the latter not being upgradable anymore (initially they were, then they became greedy and stopped upgrading devices that were fully upgradable).

The devil is in the details; some of it is just greed (which may have affected Jobs in his later days, too) and some of it is Apple slowly losing its way. Time will tell.

Why wouldn't Apple be involved? Because they aren't a Robotics company. Let's say for grins there was a robot, it might interface with an Apple computing device like any peripheral, but the actual robot wouldn't be designed and built by Apple. Apple doesn't really do peripherals. If you look at home automation, they will use iPads, iPhones, and computers, but the rest of the home automation system is done by various companies that specialize in certain aspects of the home or business. But Apple products would be something that the user interacts with or an Apple computer might be the base of the system. But I honestly don't know what robotics products the average Joe will be able to afford. So far, it's the iRobot products and I don't see lots of them and I don't know how well or badly they actually work. But they are fairly expensive. I've never seen one in someone's home, yet. They might interface with an Apple tablet, phone, etc., but Apple's not a robotics company...

Don't get me wrong...this is all "for grins"...it's a rumour site!

But just something to think about: aside from the mechanics/ergonomics what are the most important components?...hardware and software, no?!

By the way...a robot itself is not a peripheral. Maybe it's interchangeable limbs or face plate would be considered a peripheral.

e.g. java being a direct result of the OO frenzy and panic all the other companies had after they saw what NeXT can do (while bad mouthing NeXT at the same time and still getting it wrong be betting on junk like C++)?

Java (Oak) was not a reaction to Objective-C. Sure, it was influenced by it, just like C++, Simula68, and Smalltalk influenced it. Reaction implies being frightened into copying it. All programming languages borrow concepts from others. Objective-C borrowed from Smalltalk. If you look at the programming language family tree, Objective-C is just another node not a root. (See http://www.digibarn.com/collections/posters/tongues/tongues.jpg) Sun also developed the Self language, another Smalltalk derivative, whose JIT techniques went on to be used in the Java HotSpot VM. Apple "reacted" to Self by creating NewtonScript. Netscape "reacted" to Self by creating JavaScript ;-)

The NeXT's lasting influence in the programming community is Interface Builder, as all modern GUI editors have copied its basic form.

The NeXT was a great machine, one of the best desktop Unixes of it's day, but overall it was a failure. In the same way that Silicon Graphics shipped some incredibly beautiful unix workstations essentially founded the 3D revolution, but ended up sold. You can do amazing work, but still fail, while others succeed, either because of market timing, or a difference in execution or marketing. Why did Facebook beat MySpace who beat Friendster who beat SIx Degrees? The NeXT may have been tool soon for it's time, like the Newton, a generation too soon to succeed.

This from a guy who's done pretty much nothing with his company for the last 30 years? Can anyone help me out with Oracle's big accomplishments?

I was there for 6 months when they still had a cool video streaming group back in 2000. One day a mysterious meeting was called and we sat around for an hour until Larry himself walked in. He sat up on the stage for an hour rambling about this and that, and within a month, rumors were flying about the group being disbanded, which it ultimately was.

This from a guy who's done pretty much nothing with his company for the last 30 years? Can anyone help me out with Oracle's big accomplishments?

I was there for 6 months when they still had a cool video streaming group back in 2000. One day a mysterious meeting was called and we sat around for an hour until Larry himself walked in. He sat up on the stage for an hour rambling about this and that, and within a month, rumors were flying about the group being disbanded, which it ultimately was.

Steve accomplished more in his short life than this guy did.

Oracle has been successful in the high end data base market. Then they started buying up other software and hardware companies to augment their line of business so they can expand. They do back end work whereas Apple is a consumer personal computing company that gets a lot of media attention.

I didn't know this was a pissing contest to figure out who can piss the furthest.

Oracle is amongst the best at what they do. A CEO like Ellison has to figure out what other companies to buy in order to go after different markets and select which companies to buy and which markets to go after because it sometimes takes too long to develop in house what someone else has already done. He's been running the same company for a long time and it's a successful company that does quite a bit of business. Only what they do isn't as sexy to talk since most people don't understand what a data base let alone what the other aspects of their company does. Sure, a small section of the population that's in that world knows, but it's not something that people buy as a consumer product. Even though most people have interacted with Oracle software on one level or another almost daily, they may not know it, that's all.

Oracle has been successful in the high end data base market. Then they started buying up other software and hardware companies to augment their line of business so they can expand. They do back end work whereas Apple is a consumer personal computing company that gets a lot of media attention.

I didn't know this was a pissing contest to figure out who can piss the furthest.

Oracle is amongst the best at what they do. A CEO like Ellison has to figure out what other companies to buy in order to go after different markets and select which companies to buy and which markets to go after because it sometimes takes too long to develop in house what someone else has already done. He's been running the same company for a long time and it's a successful company that does quite a bit of business. Only what they do isn't as sexy to talk since most people don't understand what a data base let alone what the other aspects of their company does. Sure, a small section of the population that's in that world knows, but it's not something that people buy as a consumer product. Even though most people have interacted with Oracle software on one level or another almost daily, they may not know it, that's all.

I see Larry's company as being more derivative and evolutionary than revolutionary. I don't see him as a great visionary.

I see Larry's company as being more derivative and evolutionary than revolutionary. I don't see him as a great visionary.

And I also think his credentials are fair game in this discussion.

What does that have to do with his ability to have his own opinions on how a company is run? Ellison has to recognize where the market is going and to either develop the technology in house or buy another company to accomplish the same thing. Ellison has probably spent more time with Jobs as a personal friend and someone that used to be on Apple's BofDirectors for many years. I think it's pretty safe to say that he knows a LOT more about how Apple is run than a lot of us. He can make his own opinons, whether or not he's right is a different story, but he's been with the same company since the beginning and he's one of most successful at what Oracle does. You don't get in that position by luck. He obviously was able to compete against the other big players like IBM and others in the same space.